World reacts to new chemical weapon attack in Syria

[Ackmed]

Try reading comprehension dipshit!

Oh, good one. Added insult for extra points.

You attempted to take a shot a Trump about taking action on this. Then you went on claiming it's a good thing Clinton wasn't elected, hinting towards she wouldn't have done this. I provided you a link say that she would have done the exact same thing he did. Your attempted insult failed, much like yours to me. So as I said, get to know facts before posting. You looked silly, which is not all that unusual.

Quick, come back with more attempted insults. Because you don't have anything else.

/done

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, good one. Added insult for extra points.

You attempted to take a shot a Trump about taking action on this. Then you went on claiming it's a good thing Clinton wasn't elected, hinting towards she wouldn't have done this. I provided you a link say that she would have done the exact same thing he did. Your attempted insult failed, much like yours to me. So as I said, get to know facts before posting. You looked silly, which is not all that unusual.

Quick, come back with more attempted insults. Because you don't have anything else.

/done

Listen you ignorant fuck! As I explained to hayabusa, I was pointing out that people didn't want to vote for Hillary because she is a hawk and they got trump who is also a hawk, their silence on this is deafening and their logic was flawed.

Do you get it now or would you like to put on another display of stupidity?

 

[Pulsar]

People didn't want to vote for Hillary because she's a worthless liar. But by all means - don't let me stop you from your... insights.

 

[ivwshane]

People didn't want to vote for Hillary because she's a worthless liar. But by all means - don't let me stop you from your... insights.

So they voted for the biggest worthless liar in American political history?

Lol

 

[JSt0rm]

this is what obama wanted to do in 2013 but you rupugs blocked him because he is black.

 

[Grooveriding]

We could have left a horse head in Assad's bed and saved a bunch of money.

She was gonna be a big star!

 

[ch33zw1z]

So they voted for the biggest worthless liar in American political history?

Lol

But his lies are worth something. Just ask countless contractors, and maybe a couple TU grads

 

[baydude]

Here is a really good video by CNN of Hillary's reaction. Must watch and applaud CNN and Hillary for standing up.

 

[Jaskalas]

The man speaks well, but if we did remove Assad his fellow countrymen would brutally murder him and take control.
Assad is far from the only evil killing machine in Syria, and most actions against him only empower the others.

When it comes to world reaction... this cross posted picture nicely sums up my thoughts.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK, since I'm not on DSF's ignore list (yet), let's take another crack at this.

DSF on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and whether or not we should retaliate, in the year 2013:



https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...the-assad-regime.2340815/page-2#post-35455903

DSF today, after 3 years and an election have taken place:



We suddenly have a strong moral reason to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons. What a difference a few years makes.

And:



Funny, DSF wanted Obama to do exactly that, NOTHING, back in 2013, and he didn't seem to think that deaths due to chemical attacks were worse than other deaths.

Until now.

Just like Trump.

In 2013, Obama was formally proposing authorization to use of military force against Assad which would have likely resulted in an escalation of our involvement in Syria with American boots on the ground resulting in a ton of innocent people being killed directly/indirectly by us as we attempt to affect regime change. My primary objections were potential US losses as well as the number of innocents that would likely be killed as collateral damage due to our involvement. Now contrast that with a precision missile strike of a Syrian air force base with very little loss of life (which I advocated prior to our strike...but admittedly a position I was very reluctant to support). These were completely different situations and my opinions reflect such...and remain consistent in regard to my deep concern for loss of life.

 

[thraashman]

In 2013, Obama was formally proposing authorization to use of military force against Assad which would have likely resulted in an escalation of our involvement in Syria with American boots on the ground resulting in a ton of innocent people being killed directly/indirectly by us as we attempt to affect regime change. My primary objections were potential US losses as well as the number of innocents that would likely be killed as collateral damage due to our involvement. Now contrast that with a precision missile strike of one Syrian air force base with very little loss of life (which I advocated prior to our strike)...and was very reluctant to support. These were completely different situations and my opinions reflect such....but my opinions remain consistent in regard to my deep concern for loss of life.

Only took you 2 months and 2 days to come up with this bullshit response. That's a massive uptick in your normal brain power.

 

[Puffnstuff]

In 2013, Obama was formally proposing authorization to use of military force against Assad which would have likely resulted in an escalation of our involvement in Syria with American boots on the ground resulting in a ton of innocent people being killed directly/indirectly by us as we attempt to affect regime change. My primary objections were potential US losses as well as the number of innocents that would likely be killed as collateral damage due to our involvement. Now contrast that with a precision missile strike of one Syrian air force base with very little loss of life (which I advocated prior to our strike)...a position I was very reluctant to support. These were completely different situations and my opinions reflect such....but my opinions remain consistent in regard to my deep concern for loss of life.

Funny how House of Cards went across this scenario in season 5.

 

[ivwshane]

Only took you 2 months and 2 days to come up with this bullshit response. That's a massive uptick in your normal brain power.

That and its apparent he doesn't know what authorization of force means.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Only took you 2 months and 2 days to come up with this bullshit response. That's a massive uptick in your normal brain power.

Woolfe brought it up in another thread that I hadn't responded. Sorry my response is so late. Do you have an intelligent point to make beyond your usual slack-jawed trolling?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny how House of Cards went across this scenario in season 5.

I haven't watched it yet. Good?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I haven't watched it yet. Good?

Well I don't want to spoil it for you but if you like the drama you won't be disappointed by the treachery.

 

[JSt0rm]

dsf is a treasonous republican. He will love it.

 

[woolfe9998]

In 2013, Obama was formally proposing authorization to use of military force against Assad which would have likely resulted in an escalation of our involvement in Syria with American boots on the ground resulting in a ton of innocent people being killed directly/indirectly by us as we attempt to affect regime change. My primary objections were potential US losses as well as the number of innocents that would likely be killed as collateral damage due to our involvement. Now contrast that with a precision missile strike of one Syrian air force base with very little loss of life (which I advocated prior to our strike)...a position I was very reluctant to support. These were completely different situations and my opinions reflect such...and remain consistent in regard to my deep concern for loss of life.

Really? Have you figured out yet whether death by chemical weapons is somehow "special" as compared to deaths by other means? You seem quite befuddled on that point. You were morally outraged at other posters in this thread for being willing to not retaliate for the use of chemical weapons, but in 2013, you said that deaths due to chemical weapons were the same as any others. "Dead is dead," you said. "War is hell."

 

[JSt0rm]

Really? Have you figured out yet whether death by chemical weapons is somehow "special" as compared to deaths by other means? You seem quite befuddled on that point. You were morally outraged at other posters in this thread for being willing to not retaliate for the use of chemical weapons, but in 2013, you said that deaths due to chemical weapons were the same as any others. "Dead is dead," you said. "War is hell."

hahah. DSF is a hypocrite. Love it. Get in with pcgeek.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Really? Have you figured out yet whether death by chemical weapons is somehow "special" as compared to deaths by other means? You seem quite befuddled on that point. You were morally outraged at other posters in this thread for being willing to not retaliate for the use of chemical weapons, but in 2013, you said that deaths due to chemical weapons were the same as any others. "Dead is dead," you said. "War is hell."

Direct involvement in a civil war to affect regime change with huge casualties and loss of life vs. a tactical strike of an air base as retaliation...HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. You seem quite befuddled on that point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

hahah. DSF is a hypocrite. Love it. Get in with pcgeek.

hahah derp hahaha derp Love it.

You're not especially bright, are you?

 

[ivwshane]

Direct involvement in a civil war to affect regime change with huge casualties and loss of life vs. a tactical strike of an air base as retaliation...HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. You seem quite befuddled on that point.

Oh, now you know what Obama's military plans were? Do tell.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Have you figured out yet whether death by chemical weapons is somehow "special" as compared to deaths by other means? You seem quite befuddled on that point. You were morally outraged at other posters in this thread for being willing to not retaliate for the use of chemical weapons, but in 2013, you said that deaths due to chemical weapons were the same as any others. "Dead is dead," you said. "War is hell."

Am I the only one getting dizzy from all the spinning DSF is trying to do here?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Three years prior he said chemical weapons weren't special and needed to special response. Here he says they are special and demands a response. This is as clear as day.

 

[ivwshane]

hahah derp hahaha derp Love it.

You're not especially bright, are you?

He's the sun compared to the candle that describes your brightness.

 

[woolfe9998]

Direct involvement in a civil war to affect regime change with huge casualties and loss of life vs. a tactical strike of an air base as retaliation...HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. You seem quite befuddled on that point.

You've not answered my query about your inconsistent approach to the moral question of using chemical weapons. Why you lectured people in this thread about sitting idle in the face of such atrocities, while arguing in 2013 that these deaths were the same as all the rest. In fact, I don't see how, based on your logic in 2013, that you could possibly justify any sort of strike by Trump in 2017. According to DSF version 2013, the distinction between death due to chemical weapons and deaths due to other causes was "arbitrary." Applying that logic to 2017, if Trump strikes over the use of chemicals, why shouldn't he strike tomorrow over barrel bombs, or anything else that causes civilian causalities, right?

Since we're clear that you've ducked that issue, let's now talk about the point you DID make. Namely, the fact that you're misrepresenting historical facts. Obama was planning a retaliatory airstrike. Nothing more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

That is just one example. IIRC, it was covered that way pretty much everywhere.

Now, he did submit an open ended request to be permitted to use his discretion in employing military force in Syria. That's because you don't ask Congress to authorize a single airstrike. They don't get to micromanage that way. So in theory, even though he planned just one airstrike, he could have used more force later on under the same authorization. However, Obama never said anything about wanting boots on the ground, mucking around in their civil war, or any large scale involvement that would result in US casualties. Show me where he said any of those things.

You're just making this stuff up after the fact.